Exploring the Problem of Climate Change

So WAS it worth it then?

A week or so ago there were the “Live Earth” concerts held across the globe to raise awareness of climate change. In case you somehow missed them, as well as the media coverage following, they were apparently designed to “bring together more than 100 music artists and 2 billion people to trigger a global movement to solve the climate crisis.”(1)

This left me wondering where they got the 2 billion bit from. Hmmmm.
The population of the entire world is about 6.6 billion at the moment, of which only just over 1billion of us have internet access(2). So I would reckon that optimistically 3billion of us have televisions? Now if you assume that every single one of those people knew that the concerts were going to be on tv (which is wildly optimistic, and a lie – my parents didn’t have a clue for a start) you would need about 66% to make the conscious decision to watch it. And then there are all the people who were watching Wimbledon, or out for the day by the seaside, or dying, or giving birth, or doing everything in their power to avoid it…………..

Well according to the trusty Daily Mail, viewing figures for Live Earth in the UK (shown on BBC) peaked at 4.5million (although they were much more concerned about the bad language – tut tut). If Eastenders gets that many viewers then people start to ask why it’s doing so badly.

Following the concerts the main topic of discussion in the press seemed to be the nerve that all of the bands and celebrities had, jetting across the world merrily pumping carbon into the atmosphere while telling us all what a terrible thing climate change is (3). The point is, of course, a valid one. I’m sure the organisers would argue that it was all worth it to raise awareness of climate change around the world. The great thing about awareness is that it’s pretty hard to measure.

If it wasn’t for these complaints then the event would probably passed with even fewer numbers being aware of it – so with that twisted logic the celebrity carbon emissions may have done us some good, by getting everyone on the offensive.

Personally I was more concerned with the idea itself. It’s like someone is sitting in an office somewhere going “Anyone got any big problems? What about you Africa? Any aid needed? No problem, we’ll have a concert. Climate Change. Ooooh now that’s a nasty one isn’t it. How about errr……..a concert? Yeah, we’ll get the Pussycat Dolls to solve that one.”

I can’t help but think that despite their best intentions, Al Gore and co. might have done themselves more harm than good on this one. There is something about Live Earth that degrades the issue. People have seen it all before and they weren’t too impressed the second time. When events like this take place there is always the problem of momentum, and although they may well get people to sit up and listen and think about the issue for a couple of hours at the weekend, once the music has stopped and the stars fly home there is little hope that anyone will think any more of it. Until the next concert. We are getting to the stage now where people are aware of the issue. Awareness isn’t the problem anymore, it’s action. If Live Earth had got those 2billion people to act, or convinced their governments to do something then we’d be getting there. But even then, there is always that problem of the other pesky 4.6billion.

Bob Geldof seems to agree with me. “We are all fucking conscious of global warming” he said in an interview with a Dutch newspaper(4). “Live Earth doesn’t have a final goal. I would only organise this if I could go on stage and announce concrete environmental measures from the American presidential candidates, Congress or major corporations. They haven’t got those guarantees. So it’s just an enormous pop concert or the umpteenth time that, say, Madonna or Coldplay get up on stage.”

Apparently an ailing George Bush is trying to think of a last ditch idea to solve the Iraq problem. Ooooo…. I know………..Live Terror anyone?